Republicans have been skipping House Intelligence meetings for months

Democrats see a boycott motivated by partisan politics. Republicans argue they have legitimate security concerns.

Either way, GOP members of the House Intelligence Committee have skipped all but one of the panel's proceedings, public and private, since before Congress went into its coronavirus-lockdown in early March. And that impasse shows no signs of ending, even as the panel takes up issues like China, Covid-19 and the annual intelligence policy bill.

Democrats see it as yet another manifestation of the toxic partisan split dividing the panel during Donald Trump's presidency, in contrast to the still-bipartisan spirit that prevails on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“It seems almost counterproductive on their part,” House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told POLITICO when asked about the Republican no-shows. “It seems rather childish but I hope that they will reconsider.”

The committee, with 13 Democratic and eight Republican members, has held at least seven bipartisan hearings and roundtables, both open- and closed-door, since the pandemic shut down much of Washington in March and April. The sessions, all unclassified, included a virtual hearing in mid-June where representatives of Facebook, Twitter and Google answered questions about foreign efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

The lone session to have a GOP presence was an April 28 roundtable attended by then-Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas, a week before the Senate hearing on his nomination to be Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Committee member Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) noted that Republicans have expressed concerns about alleged political bias by those same big tech platforms. “How do you explain to your constituents that you have representatives from those three companies and you just chose not to show up?” he asked.

Republicans rejected the idea that they’re formally snubbing the committee’s work. The real problem, they say, is that Democrats insist on discussing sensitive information in virtual online sessions instead of meeting in person.

“These things get hacked. Why are we putting ourselves at that risk?” asked Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), a member of the committee. “You border on classified information and maybe sometimes even spill into it. It’s just not the way to conduct business. And there is no reason for it."

"Maybe it’s inconvenient for Adam Schiff to come back here from California," Wenstrup added. "It’s just not appropriate within the intelligence community and it’s not fitting of protocol.”

Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) said: “I really don’t believe it’s a boycott. It’s not an organized effort at all. I would just say that we have concerns about the format.”

“We’re here. Why aren’t we doing it like we used to?” asked Stewart, who also serves on the House Appropriations Committee, which is slated to hold live markups where members can join remotely. “I think we can meet together and do it safely.”

The committee's top Republican, California Rep. Devin Nunes, repeatedly declined to comment when asked about the matter.

Democrats say the Republicans haven’t provided a good explanation about why they’ve withdrawn or indicated what could get them back to the table. But Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) attributed the Republicans' absences to factors like Schiff’s leading role in the president's impeachment — and, before that, the years of acrimony caused by the panel’s GOP-led Russia investigation.

“They have their grievances, right?” Himes said. “The whole thing is absurd but they haven’t even really negotiated.”

Even before the pandemic shutdowns, Republicans on House Intelligence had boycotted a February hearing in Himes' subcommittee on emerging technology and national security, accusing Democrats of staging "publicity events" rather than looking into issues like alleged FBI abuses in domestic surveillance. That hearing occurred weeks after the end of Trump's impeachment trial.

The intelligence committee normally meets in a secure room in the Capitol — one that a specialized CIA cleaning crew had to scrub in March after Daniel Goldman, the panel's former impeachment counsel, tested positive for the coronavirus.

Since early March, the intelligence committee has held two open virtual hearings using Cisco Webex, the same video conferencing platform that other congressional panels have used.

The panel has also convened a series of closed but unclassified roundtable discussions with past government officials focused on aspects of the coronavirus — such as Chinese disinformation around the pandemic, biothreats and the intelligence community’s handling of Covid-19. Attendees included former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

The roundtables, including some that have been strictly Democrats-only by design, are conducted via Microsoft Teams, which features end-to-end encryption to prevent eavesdropping.

A senior committee official dismissed Republicans' cybersecurity objections as "non-concerns," saying the committee's staff had "consulted our security and the House security” about the risks of a breach. "There was actually less risk of that happening during a Microsoft Teams or WebEx session than there was logging into your House email or Gmail account from your home computer," the official said.

The impasse threatens to derail a series of products the panel is looking to issue in the coming weeks and months.

The committee plans to meet in person, or at least partially, to mark up its annual intelligence authorization bill by the end of July. But because of pandemic-era social distancing requirements, the panel will perform what’s called a “strawman,” where majority members are located in one secure room, the minority in another, with the budget directors and lawyers in another who then walk members through the entire bill by telephone.

The committee is also finishing up its so-called "deep dive" on China, investigating the various national security threats posed by Beijing's use of technology for surveillance, influence and political control domestically and internationally. The panel has been going back and forth with the intelligence community over the draft of its full report, and going through a classification review of the executive summary, which Schiff will make public when the review is finished, according to the senior committee official.

In addition, the Democrat-controlled panel is reviewing the Covid-19 pandemic and the intelligence community’s role in it. In particular, it's examining how the clandestine apparatus is postured to collect, analyze and disseminate intel on global health issues, including cross-border pandemics and epidemics.

Of the various policy efforts, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle believe that the intelligence bill has the best chance to bridge the latest divide.

“The IAA has historically been bipartisan," Swalwell said. "We have to signal to the Congress that we are aligned, as Republicans and Democrats, and that’s what helps us pass that” by wide, bipartisan majorities."

Wenstrup noted that the bill passed in previous years even during the height of the Russia investigation.

“The committee’s been able to work through things before,” he told POLITICO.

Wenstrup and Stewart insisted that if the panel began to convene in person, the GOP would show up.

“If it was in person I believe we would be there,” Stewart said.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/2YKtGXr
via 400 Since 1619

Fox News reporter retreats inside car after shoving BLM protester

Fox News Correspondent Dan Springer wasn’t ready for the smoke that Black Lives Matter protesters were preparing to serve him during an event on Monday. 

Springer and his crew were accosted by demonstrators after he allegedly laid hands on a woman at Seattle’s Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP), DailyMail.com reports. Chaos erupted when Springer pushed the protestor out of his way, prompting the woman to throw her coffee at him.

Fox News claims the incident occurred when an individual chest-bumped the anchor after overhearing Springer phone his producer to cancel a live shot due to the “filthy language”  that protestors were using. 

Fox News Vice President of Domestic Bureaus and L.A. Bureau Chief Nancy Harmeyer said, “At no point during the situation did the Fox News crew ever physically instigate or retaliate in any way against the protesters.”

READ MORE: 9 things to make Black Lives Matter in our public schools 

The incident went down hours after and near where two Black teenagers were shot when they tried to plow through barricades surrounding the area. A 16-year-old boy was killed and a 14-year-old is reportedly in critical condition. 

#DEVELOPING: So the man that was in that car got out and started walking away from #CHOP.

Protestors followed, swarming. Again, they say he’s an #FNC reporter and that he shoved a female protestor.

He said nothing in response. They walked several city blocks. @NBCNews pic.twitter.com/6QQBy7mjxY

— Steve Patterson (@PattersonNBC) June 29, 2020

Springer and his crew were forced to retreat into an SUV as the massive crowd shouted at him and demanded he apologize. The woman who claims she was shoved jumped on the hood of the car while others laid down on the ground in front of it. 

Photos show private armed security guards protecting the car with Springer inside.  

Once the BLM mob died after about 20 minutes, another vehicle pulled up to the rescue, Springer jumped inside it and fled the scene. 

#UPDATE: #CHOP Protestors tell me he was followed all the way to the West Precinct on foot. About a mile away. No physical incident occurred. No one injured.

They wanted an apology for what they say happened: A shove and non-racial slur.

He reportedly said nothing. @NBCNews pic.twitter.com/0fzAvSzPFC

— Steve Patterson (@PattersonNBC) June 29, 2020

“While covering the news just outside of Seattle’s CHOP zone this morning, a protester confronted Fox News Channel correspondent Dan Springer and his crew after overhearing him cancel a live report due to ‘filthy language’ in the background,” Harmeyer said. 

“The protester started yelling at him and threw a cup of coffee in his face and on his jacket. Attempting to de-escalate the situation, the crew returned to their vehicle, which was then surrounded by protesters, she added.

EXCLUSIVE: Fox News reporter trapped inside his car by dozens of protesters after he 'shoved' woman in Seattle's CHOP zone https://t.co/xYizeU2OUr pic.twitter.com/ODNfp1X9YP

— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) June 29, 2020

“Unable to drive away, the crew turned the car off and walked away from the scene. At no point during the situation did the Fox News crew ever physically instigate or retaliate in any way against the protesters,” Harmeyer said. 

Springer reportedly called 911 for police assistance during the confrontation but officers did not respond.

Have you subscribed to theGrio’s new podcast “Dear Culture”? Download our newest episodes now!

The post Fox News reporter retreats inside car after shoving BLM protester appeared first on TheGrio.

from TheGrio https://ift.tt/3g9ed9b

How Hickenooper may side-step a challenge from the left

John Hickenlooper's resume reads like a target list for the left: a moderate former elected official with a record of working with Republicans. But even a shaky performance down the stretch hasn't knocked him out of pole position in Tuesday's Colorado Senate primary.

The former two-term governor and presidential candidate stumbled in the past month after entering the Senate race as a big Democratic favorite, inviting criticism from some allies and from Andrew Romanoff, his liberal Democratic primary opponent. Hickenlooper had to apologize for insensitive comments about race, and he was also cited for contempt by the state's Independent Ethics Commission, which found he violated state ethics laws as governor.

But instead of turning into the latest progressive beachhead in the party’s primary battles, Hickenlooper looks likely to turn back the challenge and advance to the general election, where GOP Sen. Cory Gardner is vulnerable in a critical race for Senate control.

New endorsements from national and Colorado Democrats across the ideological spectrum have shored up Hickenlooper, along with a financial advantage fueled by heavy-spending allies — and exacerbated by a dearth of national online money flowing Romanoff’s way, in contrast to the late support and attention that boosted Kentucky state Rep. Charles Booker into a tight race with Amy McGrath in last week’s Democratic Senate primary. Hickenlooper’s relationships with powerbrokers and voters over 16 years as governor and mayor of Denver gave him the tools to stabilize his campaign.

"Only a small handful of groups endorsed, and even fewer put real muscle behind Andrew," said Evan Weber, co-founder of the Sunrise Movement, a climate-focused group that endorsed Romanoff early in the race and was also a key backer of Booker in Kentucky.

Weber bemoaned the lack of buy-in from other groups on the left, calling Colorado the clearest Senate opportunity to elect a candidate with progressive priorities in 2020. But Hickenlooper supporters said that the former governor’s strengths and record in the state helped him make it through a rough patch.

“When you're well known and build up this reservoir of goodwill, you can withstand some of these things,” said Jim Carpenter, chief of staff to former Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, who endorsed Hickenlooper last week. “I just think everybody sees Hickenlooper as the much stronger general election candidate, so the national Democrats rallied.”

"This is crunch time," Hickenlooper said during a get-out-the-vote Zoom event Monday with volunteers and elected officials who endorsed him. "This is when it all matters and we've got to put it all out there."

"We know that we're living through rough times now," he said. "From coronavirus to racial justice we have a lot of work to do. But in every tough moment, Colorado has always risen to the occasion."

Romanoff — who joined the race long before Hickenlooper jumped from the presidential race to the Senate campaign, clearing the field of other contenders — has run to the left, promoting the Green New Deal and "Medicare for All" while criticizing Hickenlooper’s more moderate approach. But Romanoff — previously a more centrist Democrat, who lost a 2010 Senate primary and 2014 House race — has not benefited from the national spotlight other progressive candidates have received.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, who endorsed and raised money for Booker in Kentucky and House challengers in New York, has not gotten involved in Colorado. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker both endorsed Hickenlooper earlier this month. Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams, who endorsed Hickenlooper in May, sent out a video Friday touting his work as governor establishing universal vote-by-mail, which has taken on heightened importance during the pandemic.

A handful of national progressive organizations, including the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, backed Romanoff down the stretch, and Our Revolution, which launched out of Sanders’ first presidential run, also endorsed him. But many of the groups who jumped into Kentucky stayed on the sidelines in Colorado.

Romanoff downplayed the significance of the national progressives in an interview, saying he focused on local support.

“Some of the politicians out of state haven't signed on yet, that's fine. Washington will make its own decisions,” Romanoff said, touting his endorsements from environmental organizations and hundreds of former and current local officials. “We’re picking up leaders in Colorado all the time, they just don't attract the attention of the chattering class in D.C. But they can vote here, unlike the politicians in Washington.”

Hickenlooper’s allies have long argued that he is the clearly better option to face Gardner in a seat Democrats cannot afford to lose to have a shot at flipping the Senate. Despite his struggles, Hickenlooper maintains a positive image among the state’s Democrats, and a lead in the polls.

Stewart Boss, a spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said the former governor has a positive image because of his “proven record of getting things done.”

“He is the biggest threat to Cory Gardner, which is why Republicans have already spent millions trying to tear him down,” Boss said.

But Romanoff and his supporters have tried to undercut that notion, arguing that the state Ethics Commission’s recent ruling that Hickenlooper violated state ethics laws as governor would put Democrats’ top Senate target in jeopardy.

“Presumably they endorsed him because they thought he was the most electable candidate and has the best chance to beat Gardner," said Weber, the Sunrise Movement co-founder. "What completely confounds me is we've seen tons of evidence to suggest that is a really hard case to make.”

In addition to high-profile endorsements, Hickenlooper’s campaign has touted nearly two dozen local Democrats who switched their endorsement from Romanoff to the former governor recently, although that represents a small fraction of the officials who backed Romanoff’s campaign.

Gardner’s campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have run ads attacking Hickenlooper for the Ethics Commission ruling, as well as his comments — made while running for president — that he didn’t want to serve in the Senate. The NRSC and two “dark money” groups that don’t disclose donors, one in Colorado and one aligned with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have ads booked in Colorado in July continuing the wave of attacks.

“Hickenlooper’s brazen disregard for the law and transparency has sent his campaign spiraling out of control,” said Jesse Hunt, a spokesperson for the NRSC. “It’s left a stain on his candidacy that won’t be forgotten by the independent voters essential to a winning coalition in Colorado.”

Senate Majority PAC, which is aligned with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, has already spent nearly $3 million on the race defending Hickenlooper against GOP attacks, including more than $1 million in the last week. And a newly formed Colorado-based super PAC that has yet to disclose its donors spent more than $1 million on late ads attacking Romanoff, who ran a negative ad bashing Hickenlooper.

Still, even as the race has turned nasty down the stretch, Democrats think the party will rally together in the general because Colorado is so critical to chipping away at the GOP Senate majority. Ian Silverii, executive director of ProgressNow Colorado, said Hickenlooper was still well positioned to emerge Tuesday and start the general election as the frontrunner.

“Hick can ride his good name and the current political wave to a double digit victory in November against Gardner, and progressive Democrats and anyone who is voting against Trump in November have one objective in Colorado: beat Gardner,” he said. “That’s it, that’s the whole ball game.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3dKaopx
via 400 Since 1619

Would Trump abandon Twitter?

Big Tech is cracking down on Donald Trump, which gives him all the more reason to retreat from its platforms into his own digital ecosystem.

The president’s reelection campaign and some of his followers had already been joining and promoting alternative social media sites, much as the president pressures Fox News when it displeases him by calling attention to its upstart conservative rival, One America News Network.

That was before the most recent wave of crackdowns on Trump and his supporters by social-media firms seeking to remove content that is deemed offensive, inaccurate or both.

On Monday, the social media platform Reddit shuttered “The Donald,” a forum for Trump supporters, as part of a larger clampdown against groups that had violated rules against harassment and hate speech. Separately, Twitch, a video streaming platform owned by Amazon, suspended the Trump campaign’s channel for rules violations.

The moves — which came the day after Trump tweeted, then deleted, a video in which one of his supporters shouted “white power” in a confrontation with protesters — were just the latest steps by tech companies to distance themselves from Trump and far-right movements.

In recent weeks, as Twitter has begun applying disclaimers to some of Trump’s tweets for violating its policies, Trump’s campaign and many of its online supporters have taken a greater interest in the nascent social media platform Parler. The Twitter-like site markets itself as free-speech friendly and has attracted a small, right-leaning user base. The likes of Eric Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz have both joined the platform this month, and on June 18, Trump’s campaign manager Brad Parscale tweeted, “Hey @twitter, your days are numbered,” along with a link to Parler.

While the conflict between social media platforms and the right have intensified in recent weeks, the underlying tensions have been building for years.

Trump’s first campaign and the populist movement behind it rode to power by hijacking attention on mainstream media platforms, often in clever or outrageous ways. The Donald tapped into that strategy, serving as a gathering place for supporters to share pro-Trump memes, many of them offensive, and to strategize about spreading them around the internet, while Trump’s campaign monitored the forum for inspiration.

But The Donald also participated in some of the most dangerous tendencies of right-wing internet populism: In 2016, The forum was instrumental in promoting “Pizzagate,” a false internet conspiracy theory about powerful pedophiles operating out of a a Washington pizzeria that inspired a North Carolina man armed with an assault rifle to storm the business.

Due in part to such incidents, the president’s most fervent supporters, as well as other far-right extremists associated with Trump’s brand of populism, have long presented a dilemma to social media companies. The platforms have faced calls from Democrats and civil society groups to more tightly police their online behavior, but companies have often been reluctant to forego the engagement provided by these users, invest in enforcement or risk complaints of censorship from the president’s supporters.

Calls for a crackdown first gained widespread traction after an August 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, turned deadly. National outrage prompted social media platforms, payment processors and web hosts to crack down on white nationalism, a move that was largely successful in reducing the visibility and influence of many of the alt-right’s most notorious figures, such as Richard Spencer.

The tightening vice has prompted some on the far right to create or migrate to online platforms more amenable to their politics. In addition to Parler, there is Gab, which bills itself as an anti-censorship alternative to Twitter; Discord, a forum for private chat groups that is popular on the far right; and Urbit, a decentralized computing experiment started by programmer Curtis Yarvin, whose anti-democratic, “neoreactionary” internet writings have influenced a number of Trump’s populist allies, including, reportedly, Steve Bannon.

Even these alternative platforms have their limits. Last week, Discord shuttered one of the largest chat groups associated with the “Boogaloo,” a loose-knit, far-right movement that is often associated with white nationalism and whose name alludes to the idea of a coming civil war. Discord took action after a man associated with the movement was charged with murder during the unrest that followed the killing of George Floyd.

Tech companies’ efforts to rein in right-wing populism also present a dilemma to Trump. Threatening to abandon the platforms may give him leverage to fight back against restrictions, but the platforms still allow him to directly reach tens of millions of people, making it unlikely he would leave them altogether.

Instead, well before the latest round of clashes, the president and his supporters had been taking small steps away from the big social platforms, experimenting with smaller, more controlled digital environments. POLITICO first reported on the Trump campaign’s interest in Parler last year. The campaign has also made an app for supporters with its own social component a centerpiece of its reelection strategy.

That drift away from the big platforms now looks primed to accelerate.

On Monday, as soon as The Donald’s ban from Reddit was announced, its users were touting an alternative forum, TheDonald.Win. Asked for comment on the banning, Trump’s campaign offered a statement urging voters to download the campaign’s app in order “to hear directly from the president.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3eIRK2I
via 400 Since 1619

Senate Republicans squeeze Trump over Russian bounties

Senate Republicans are vowing to get to the bottom of bombshell reports that Russia offered bounties to Afghan militants for targeted killings of U.S. troops overseas — and suggesting that retaliation against Moscow may be in order.

Key committee chairs made clear on Monday that they will press the White House for answers about the intelligence assessments, and GOP senators pushed President Donald Trump to exact severe punishments on the Kremlin if the claims are true — even as the president asserts that he was never briefed on the matter.

“I want to understand how it’s conceivably possible that the president didn’t know. How does that possibly happen?” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said. “Number two, what is their plan to make sure that our enemies know that if you target American servicemen and women, the consequences are going to be draconian? And right now, I want to hear their plan for Taliban and GRU agents in body bags.” GRU refers to Russia’s military intelligence agency.

Senators have already proposed harsh repercussions, including imposing new sanctions and designating Moscow as a state sponsor of terrorism — a step the Trump administration has thus far refused to take.

But some lawmakers are urging restraint, after White House officials briefed House Republicans earlier Monday and explained that there was an ongoing review of the bounty claims even before they were revealed in media reports. Senators said they would be reviewing documents related to the matter in a secure facility this week.

“It is important to be cautious on intelligence writ large, because when it’s proven to not be accurate, it can lead to things like a war or other measures that proved to be counterproductive,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the acting chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters. “You pull out one little piece and you put it in the public domain and you act like it was some smoking gun situation. So that’s one of the reasons I just don’t comment on reports such as these.”

The Senate GOP’s pressure on the White House could re-open a rift between Trump and Republicans when it comes to the U.S. relationship with Moscow. Congressional Republicans, including Rubio and other GOP leaders, have typically shown more antipathy and distrust toward Russia than the president.

In addition to Monday afternoon’s briefing for House Republicans, a group of House Democrats is slated to receive a briefing on Tuesday morning. But as of Monday evening, senators had no official word on when they would get the full story on what lawmakers described as an outrageous plot to assassinate American troops.

Asked if there was any progress on scheduling a briefing, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) bluntly said: “No.” Senate Republicans indicated on Monday that they would continue to press for a classified briefing.

“I think it’s incumbent on the administration to brief Congress, and they’re in the process of doing it,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

“I want to get the facts. Does it surprise me about Putin? He’s our adversary, he supports Iran, he’s a thug,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) added.

Trump, meanwhile, has been defensive over the initial reports. He attacked the news media for reporting on the intelligence assessments and offered no words of condemnation for the Kremlin, which Democratic leaders emphasized as they called for briefings for all members of Congress.

Moreover, many Republicans do not appear to be taking the White House’s pushback at face value, with some arguing that the president should have been briefed on an issue as serious as this one. Democrats, meanwhile, have highlighted Trump’s efforts to re-admit Russia into the Group of Eight summit nations amid initial reports that he was briefed about the alleged bounty offers but did nothing in response.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the vice chairman, of the Intelligence Committee, said the ordeal “raises enormous questions about why this administration continues to kowtow to Putin and Russia.”

A western defense official confirmed to POLITICO on Monday that Russia’s GRU put out bounties for American and British coalition fighters in Afghanistan. The New York Times first reported on the U.S. intelligence assessment, adding that Trump was briefed on the matter earlier this year.

The White House has offered conflicting responses in the wake of the initial reports, which were followed by stories from the New York Times and Washington Post that at least one and possibly several U.S. service members were killed as a result of the bounties.

Trump has since denied that he was ever briefed, and John Ratcliffe, the director of national intelligence, backed up that claim. The president later said his intelligence officials told him the bounty offers were not credible, but White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said on Monday that there was “no consensus within the intelligence community” due to dissenting views on the accuracy of the assessment — a view some GOP lawmakers emphasized.

“I don't think it should be a surprise to anybody that the Taliban’s been trying to kill Americans and that the Russians have been encouraging that, if not providing means to make that happen,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who sits on the Intelligence Committee.

Cornyn also defended Trump over his assertion that he was never briefed on the intelligence assessment, adding: “I think the president can’t single-handedly remember everything, I’m sure that he’s briefed on. But the intelligence officials are familiar with it, and briefed him.”

Despite the White House’s posture, GOP senators are coalescing around efforts to punish Russia. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), one of the most vulnerable Republicans up for re-election this year, renewed his push for legislation that would put pressure on the State Department to declare Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who also faces a re-election battle this year, appeared to endorse Gardner’s push.

Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) wrote a separate letter to Trump on Monday urging him to hold Russian President Vladimir Putin accountable over the alleged bounties.

“Depending on where the facts lead, there should be no invitation for the Russian Federation to rejoin the G7 and you should impose sanctions directly on both President Putin and Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov,” Young wrote.

Young also said he was “alarmed” at the idea that Trump and relevant congressional committees were left in the dark about the intelligence assessments, and urged Trump to take punitive measures against his own officials if they did not brief him.

“I stand ready to hold any members of your administration accountable for their gross negligence in performing such a grave responsibility,” Young wrote.

A handful of House Republicans who attended the White House briefing on Monday came away with a markedly different response. Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) accused the New York Times of using “unconfirmed” intelligence in an ongoing investigation to “smear” Trump, and said the newspaper has “blood” on its hands and tainted an ongoing investigation into the accuracy of the claims — a stance that Graham echoed.

“Sad, but many in the media & Congress rushed to judgement [sic] before learning the whole story. We should treat anonymously sourced @nytimes stories about Russia w/ skepticism,” Banks wrote on Twitter.

But House Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and House GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney (Wyo.) came away with a different view, saying in a joint statement that they “remain concerned about Russian activity in Afghanistan, including reports that they have targeted U.S. forces.”

“It has been clear for some time that Russia does not wish us well in Afghanistan,” the lawmakers added. “We believe it is important to vigorously pursue any information related to Russia or any other country targeting our forces.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/3gmMCll
via 400 Since 1619